I was speaking more recently so I understand the confusion.Snipped for focus.
I didn't notice this part earlier but where has JP stated he wouldn't have adequate time to prepare for the trial? I don't recall him making many comments in general since the scheduling hearing. At that point, the state wanted Sept. 2023 and JP wanted Oct. 2022. He saw no reason he couldn't be ready to go at that point and if I recall correctly, it was more time than he thought he'd even need. Obviously, everything on the LV side changes his strategy but I just don't recall him making arguments that he wouldn't be able to be able to be ready by trial. My assumption is that he's pivoted his strategy based on several JB rulings and LV situation with speedy trial. A continuance would obviously change the landscape in this case.
From his Motion from last week @ https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/092722 Motion to Continue.pdf
Quotes -
“Mr. Chad Daybell, by and through his undersigned attorney, respectfully submits the following motion to vacate the current trial date due to the substantial amount of trial investigation
and preparation and significant amount of discovery not provided to defense still outstanding
and
“The prosecution has recently made a request for additional DNA testing, and several discovery items still have not been turned over to the defense. Though the prosecution has no less than five attorneys working on this case—five times the manpower of undersigned counsel—they have not yet complied with their discovery obligations.”
I think he was previously he was operating the assumption and hope that the State would be following their legal and ethical obligations and would have turned everything they had over by now.